The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part II

The headline in the USA Today clearly had a different perspective from the New York Times:  "Durham blasts FBI for 2016 Trump-Russia probe."  Right off, the paper gives us this quote from the Durham report:  "Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department (of Justice) and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report."  The question is why?

Why did the agents and Department officials fail to adhere to the law?  Might it be because of their overwhelming anti-Trump bias.  The USA Today:  "Durham said the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane based on 'unevaluated evidence' at the direction of former deputy director Andrew McCabe and former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who 'at a minimum, has pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.'"  

And then there is this damning statement in the Durham report:  "...neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."  But, why would they need evidence if the goal was to get Trump?  

And the report told us this:  "The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign."  Another example of how Trump was treated differently from Clinton.  Who is surprised?  Good for the USA Today for demonstrating a willingness to report a harsher assessment of the actions taken by the FBI than the New York Times was willing to do; an assessment reflected in the Durham report.  But the New York Times was all in with regards to Russian collusion, and attacking Trump.  It is clear that the Times is not about to back off now.

Finally, here is the headline that was in the local paper, the Ventura County Star, on May 17:  "Durham:  FBI's Trump-Russia probe flawed."  The paper also notes that "the FBI has also long since announced dozens of corrective actions."  And, in responding to the report, The FBI said this:  "Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented."  Missteps?  The FBI is being too kind to itself.  

Meanwhile, the paper reports that House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, has invited Durham to testify.  

Here is my concern.  Any system of government still depends on people of good will.  No matter how many rules are put in place, it depends on people willing to do what is right.  However, our country is so divided, that people at the highest levels of federal agencies inappropriately expressed negative attitudes towards Trump, and then acted on those attitudes.  People in the mainstream media justified their biased reporting because they believed Trump had to be stopped.  So they acted as advocates, rather than acting as reporters and journalists.  Will anything change, especially if Trump turns out to be the 2024 Republican nominee for president?